• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Magic Professors

So in this extreme case (which corresponds to the limit as the number of people besides you with a winning combination tends to infinity) it makes no odds which numbers you choose (disjoint ticket numbers are still an optimum, of course).

As I said, the real case lies between the two extremes I've modeled ... or should I say nearly modeled ... pesky numbers.
 
Dear oh dear, I can't believe you're taking these claims seriously! We're talking about the jackpot here, not the small prizes, so that particular line of thought is a straw man argument. This is an important distinction. So, as one poster said, buying more tickets increases your odds of winning the jackpot (as long as no two of those tickets contain exactly the same numbers). That's it...no more, no less. It's still 6 random numbers, and you still need all 6 to win the jackpot!

But don't take my word for it; let's see if we can get some kind of study set up here. Let's create a piece of software that can generate 6 random numbers out of 49 (should be fairly easy to do, although this could involve a confounding variable based on computer RN generation rather than lottery balls, but building a mock-up of a lottery machine involves money, and I can't imagine us getting to borrow a real lottery machine).

Let's create 2 groups (each group randomly allocated to one condition): one group uses some kind of 'chance reduction' system, and the other just chooses the 6 numbers completely at random. We need to carry out the test enough times to be able to identify any statistical significance.

My hypothesis: there will be no difference between the two conditions.
 
but on this example, you've not taken into account the fact that [2,3] wins a jackpot and wins a minor prize
as does [1,2]

No --- they don't. Doing so was a mistake in the first example. I said.

If I have tickets [1,2] [2,3]
and the winning ticket is drawn as [2,3] then my first ticket will win a minor prize and my second ticket will win a jackpot prize.....equally if [1,2] is drawn my first ticket will win a jackpot prize, and my second ticket will win a minor prize.....
unless you introduce extra rules about not being able to win both a minor and jackpot prize - which we haven't....:)

so there's no difference in E(v) between [1,2] [2,3] and [1,2][3,4] they both give me 2a + 16b over 15 rounds....

to plug in some numbers, say jackpot prize (a) was £100 and minor prize (b) was £20

then with tickets [1,2] [2,3] over 15 rounds i'd have an E(v) of....

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {2,3}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,4} {1,5} {1,6} {3,4} {3,5} {3,6} {1,2} {2,3}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {2,4} {2,5} {2,6} {1,3}
Lose: (3/15) : {4,5} {4,6} {5,6}

2x100 + 8x20 + 4x40 = £520

and with the tickets [1,2] [3,4] over 15 rounds i'd have an E(v) of.....

One jackpot (2/15) : {1,2} {3,4}
Two jackpots (0/15)
One minor prize (8/15) : {1,5} {1,6} {2,5} {2,6} {3,5} {3,6} {4,5} {4,6}
Two minor prizes (4/15) : {1,4} {1,3} {2,3} {2,4}
Lose (1/15) : {5,6}

2x100 + 8x20+ 4x40 = £520

edit.
ok i think i realise why were talking at cross purposes - i'm assuming that in the example, the minor prizes are fixed amounts, and you're taking them as determined relative to the whole prize fund.....:)

i've looked up the national lottery breakdown, and whilst 3 numbers are fixed, 4,5,6 are percentages.....

3 numbers £10 1: 57
4 numbers 22% of remaining fund 1: 1,033
5 numbers 10% of remaining fund 1: 55,492
5 numbers and bonus ball 16% of remaining fund 1: 2,330,636
6 numbers 52% of remaining fund 1: 13,983,816
 
Last edited:
Dear oh dear, I can't believe you're taking these claims seriously! We're talking about the jackpot here, not the small prizes, so that particular line of thought is a straw man argument. This is an important distinction. So, as one poster said, buying more tickets increases your odds of winning the jackpot (as long as no two of those tickets contain exactly the same numbers). That's it...no more, no less. It's still 6 random numbers, and you still need all 6 to win the jackpot!
No-one has denied this. However, it is still possible to maximize one's expected winnings, and the professors' scheme accomplishes this.

It is the claim of the Daily Mail journalist that this is an "unbeatable system" for scooping the jackpot that is the "straw man".
 
Last edited:
edit.
ok i think i realise why were talking at cross purposes - i'm assuming that in the example, the minor prizes are fixed amounts, and you're taking them as determined relative to the whole prize fund.....:)
Yes. So you can't win two jackpots, say, because what would in fact happen is that you'd be splitting the jackpot money two ways with yourself.

As the number of other people who have also won tends to infinity, we get closer to the second case, in which every hit increases your winnings by a fixed amount (which tends to 0).
 
I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial?
 
I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial?

i don't think anyone here is arguing with you with regards to being able to affect the odds of hitting a given set of numbers, the best you can do is maximise your E(v)
 
fun thread. I've read that there's groups that look for vulnerable lotteries around the world to crack in this way.
 
fun thread. I've read that there's groups that look for vulnerable lotteries around the world to crack in this way.

there's been cases of groups/individuals working out that in certain lotteries they can come out with a positive E(v) - this seems only viable with scratchcard lotteries, where all tickets are distinct, and can all be purchased.....

i'm looking for a cite, as there's a famous example in which a group in the US bought up as many scatchcards as they could for a state lottery (they managed to buy over 70%) as the E(v) was positive for some reason (roll over perhaps?).....and made a lot of money.....
 
Last edited:
About ten years ago, I lived in Florida, which ran the state lottery in the same way, giving the odds for winning the jackpot at about 1 in 14,000,000. I didn't play unless the prize was above a certain level, which wasn't unusual, as the number of players tended to rise as the jackpot grew. As the number of players rose, so did the likelihood that the jackpot would be split among multiple winners.

Most of my co-workers who were playing would by 10 or 20 tickets to improve their odds of winning. Personally, I didn't see much difference between a 1 in 14 million chance and a 1 in 1.4 million ( or 1 in 700,000 ) chance. What I saw in either case was just long odds.

What difference I did see was that between winning 1/2 of the jackpot and winning 2/3 of the jackpot, or that between winning 1/3 of the jackpot and 1/2 ( actually 2/4, as will become clear in a minute ). Knowing what lousy random number generators that people are, and how under-represented the numbers between 32 and 49 are in lottery choices as compared to a truly random distribution, I would buy five quick pick tickets ( where the computer would randomly pick numbers for you ), and then I would head straight for the lottery form that allowed you to pick your own numbers. I would then duplicate the computer generated choices so that I held two sets of identical tickets.

Sure, I didn't improve my odds of winning when I purchased those second five tickets. The odds of winning the lottery are outrageously bad to begin with, and I had no intention of buying enough lottery tickets to get my odds down to something that most rational people would consider still really bad.

But, if I were to have beaten the odds, then I would be entitled to a double share of the jackpot. Assuming the prize was $30 million, the extra $5 would win me $20 million as opposed to $15 million if I split with one other ticket, and $15 million as opposed to $10 million if I split with two other tickets.

Unfortunately, none of us ( big surprise, considering the aforementioned long odds ) ever did win before I moved away.

Eric
 
I just read this little bit:

She said: "We are not overly concerned by it as everybody has a method of trying to win. However, we would say that being in a syndicate does increase your chance of a win as one in four jackpots goes to a syndicate."

Wouldn't that mean that 3 out of 4 jackpots are NOT won by a syndicate? I understand how being in a syndicate would increase one's chances of winning by enabling someone to have a stake in a greater number of tickets and thereby improving the odds, but a lottery player with 100 tickets would stand the same ( very bad ) chance of winning as a syndicate with 100 tickets. This, of course, ignores the fact that they have to split the prize amongst them, and have really only won 1/6 of the jackpot. How can they possibly make the argument that because single players win three times more frequently than syndicates ( which then have to split the prize ) that players are better off in a syndicate?

Eric
 
I just read this little bit:



Wouldn't that mean that 3 out of 4 jackpots are NOT won by a syndicate? I understand how being in a syndicate would increase one's chances of winning by enabling someone to have a stake in a greater number of tickets and thereby improving the odds, but a lottery player with 100 tickets would stand the same ( very bad ) chance of winning as a syndicate with 100 tickets. This, of course, ignores the fact that they have to split the prize amongst them, and have really only won 1/6 of the jackpot. How can they possibly make the argument that because single players win three times more frequently than syndicates ( which then have to split the prize ) that players are better off in a syndicate?

Eric


we have two people Mr A and Mr B,

mr A buys one ticket a week
Mr B spends one ticket worth of money as part of a 100 ticket syndicate

Mr B is 100x more likely to win the jackpot

So it depends what you mean by "better" - all other things being equal (for simplicity), mr A and mr B do have the the same E(v). mr B has however given himself a greater chance of winning a jackpot - even if it will be greatly diminished jackpot....

the stats as to 1/4 of winners are syndicates are themselves meaningless because they tell us nothing as to how many syndicates there are relative to non-syndicate players......

but it's perfectly ok to say that if Mr B judges success solely on winning the jackpot (regardless of the amount) then he is better off in a syndicate....
 
Last edited:
I would love to think there is some way to increase your chances of successfully predicting 6 randomly-generated numbers from 49. However, no matter how plausible the arguments and hypotheses, until we can prove them empirically, then I am afraid the claims made by both the Daily Mail and the syndicate are simply a good, old-fashioned case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this).

Does anybody want to have a go at proving me wrong? Can we somehow set up a trial?
But as andyandy has just pointed out, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, no-one except the journalists on the Daily Mail has made such a claim.
 
Shouldn't people in math class be teaching the cost/return rate on the lottery instead?

Just sayin'
 
But as andyandy has just pointed out, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, no-one except the journalists on the Daily Mail has made such a claim.

These comments by Barry Waterhouse (the syndicate 'leader') do not coincide with what you just claimed:

"But we just weren't winning with the numbers being picked that way, so we thought of a different method which would mean all 49 numbers would be used," said Mr Waterhouse.
"We just thought that if all the numbers are in use we must have a good chance of winning and it has proved so, though you never really think it will happen to you."
 
These comments by Barry Waterhouse (the syndicate 'leader') do not coincide with what you just claimed:

no, i agree that their system didn't make it any more likely that they were going to hit the jackpot - and for barry to think otherwise is silly.....

re-reading the article however, the "magic professors" tag seems a bit of a stretch -

Syndicate leader Barry Waterhouse, 41, who works at the design and printing section of the university

A fourth syndicate member was named as Jackie Nichol, 59, who was due to retire from the printing offices at the university to set up a business selling soap.

actually they seem to work in the printing offices at a university....:)
 
re-reading the article however, the "magic professors" tag seems a bit of a stretch - actually they seem to work in the printing offices at a university....:)

Aha! But it certainly grabbed peoples' attention ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom